Search

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory joint disease accompanied by energy depletion and accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Inorganic nanoparticles (NPs) offer great promise for the treatment of RA because they mostly have functions beyond being drug carriers. However, conventional nanomaterials become coated with a protein corona (PC) or lose their cargo prematurely in vivo , reducing their therapeutic efficacy. To avoid these problems, we loaded methotrexate (MTX) into hollow structured manganese dioxide nanoparticles (H-MnO 2 NPs), then coated them with a 'pseudo-corona' of human serum albumin (HSA) at physiological concentrations to obtain HSA-MnO 2 @MTX NPs. Efficacy of MTX, MnO 2 @MTX, and HSA-MnO 2 @MTX NPs was compared in vitro and in vivo . Compared to MnO 2 @MTX, HSA-coated NPs were taken up better by lipopolysaccharide-activated RAW264.7 and were more effective at lowering levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines and preventing ROS accumulation. HSA-MnO 2 @MTX NPs were also more efficient at blocking the proliferation and migration of fibroblast-like synoviocytes from rats with collagen-induced arthritis. In this rat model, HSA-MnO 2 @MTX NPs showed better biodistribution than other treatments, specifically targeting the ankle joint. Furthermore, HSA-MnO 2 @MTX NPs reduced swelling in the paw, regulated pro-inflammatory cytokine production, and limited cartilage degradation and signs of inflammation. These results establish the therapeutic potential of HSA-MnO 2 @MTX NPs against RA.

Backgrounds: Baricitinib, an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 and 2, is approved for moderate and severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with insufficient response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The study evaluated the safety of baricitinib 24 weeks 4 mg or 2 mg for the treatment of RA., Methods: The net change (least squares mean [LSM]) of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), creatinine, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels from baseline with the comparison of baricitinib versus placebo was pooled, respectively. The risk ratios (RR) of serious advanced events (SAEs), major cardiovascular events (MACEs), infection, serious infection, and advanced events (AEs) at the end of treatment across groups were compared., Results: Five randomized controlled trials with 2901 patients were included in the summary analysis. Results showed that baricitinib 4 mg significantly increased ALT and creatinine levels, the net LSM change was respectively 3.59 U/L with 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.75-5.43), 4.25 µmol/L with 95% CI (3.38-5.12), however, baricitinib 2 mg of ALT and creatinine levels were not significantly different. Baricitinib 4 mg and 2 mg significantly increased LDL-C levels, the net LSM change was respectively 11.44 mg/dL with 95% CI (6.08-16.80), 8.70 mg/dL with 95% CI (4.19-13.20). Baricitinib 4 mg significantly increased the incidence of infection, the pooled RR (95% CI) was 1.29 (1.13-1.47), and baricitinib 2 mg was not significantly different. However, the pooled RRs of SAEs, MACEs, and serious infection were not statistically significant across groups. The pooled RRs of AEs were not statistically significant between baricitinib 4 mg and 2 mg., Conclusions: This study confirmed that patients with RA taking 4 mg baricitinib increased levels of ALT, creatinine, as well as an increased risk of infections, compared with those taking 2 mg baricitinib. Both 2 mg and 4 mg also increased the level of LDL-C, but it increased the most severely at 4 mg baricitinib. However, the incidence of SAEs, MACEs, and serious infection was not significantly different in patients treated with baricitinib 4 mg and 2 mg compared with placebo, the incidence of AEs was not significantly different between baricitinib 4 mg and 2 mg., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Tofacitinib is a targeted JAK inhibitor used to treat rheumatoid arthritis. Despite some recent safety concerns, it is considered effective and safe with appropriate patient selection. Between May 2015 and May 2024, data were retrospectively analyzed from 112 patients with a diagnosis of RA in a tertiary care hospital who had received tofacitinib for at least 1 month, with or without prior biologic DMARDs. The mean disease duration was 12 years, and the median duration of tofacitinib use was 32.5 months. The p-value for all disease activity parameters evaluated for effectiveness between the 1st- and 3rd-month visits was <0.001, except CRP (p = 0.097). Adverse events occurred in 15 (13.4%) patients, with an incidence rate of 4.54 per 100 patient-years. Observed were one myocardial infarction (0.3/100 patient-years), two pulmonary embolisms (0.6/100 patient-years), three herpes zoster (HZ) (0.9/100 patient-years), and one basal cell carcinoma (BCC) (0.3/100 patient-years). Median drug-free survival was 68 (95% CI: 54.8-81.2) months. The drug was discontinued in 28 (25%) patients due to ineffectiveness and in 13 (11.6%) due to side effects. A significant difference in drug survival rates was observed between patients who had not previously used bDMARDs and those who had received at least one bDMARD before tofacitinib (p < 0.001). Drug survival was 46.35 months in the prior bDMARD group and 71.09 months in the bDMARD-naive group. This study found significant reductions in disease activity indices at 3 and 6 months after starting tofacitinib, with sustained effectiveness. Although adverse event rates were somewhat higher than reported in the literature, tofacitinib can be used effectively and safely in appropriate patient populations for RA treatment., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Aims: To develop a non-linear mixed-effects population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model describing the change in the concentration of methotrexate polyglutamates in erythrocytes (ery-MTX-PG n with "n" number of glutamate, representing PK component) and how this relates to modified 28-joint Disease Activity Score incorporating erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS-28-3) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), representing PD component., Methods: An existing PK model was fitted to data from a study consisting of 117 RA patients. The estimation of population PK-PD parameters was performed using stochastic approximation expectation maximisation algorithm in Monolix 2021R2. The model was used to perform Monte Carlo simulations of a loading dose regimen (50mg subcutaneous methotrexate as loading doses, then 20mg weekly oral methotrexate) compared to a standard dosing regimen (10mg weekly oral methotrexate for 2 weeks, then 20mg weekly oral methotrexate)., Results: Every 40 nmol/L increase in ery-MTX-PG 3-5 total concentration correlated with 1-unit reduction in DAS-28-3. Significant covariate effects on the therapeutic response of methotrexate included the use of prednisolone in the first 4 weeks (positive use correlated with 25% reduction in DAS-28-3 when other variables were constant) and patient age (every 10-year increase in age correlated with 3.4% increase in DAS-28-3 when other variables were constant). 4 methotrexate loading doses led to a higher percentage of patients achieving a good/moderate response compared to the standard regimen (Week 4: 87.6% vs. 39.8%; Week 10: 64.7% vs. 57.0%)., Conclusions: A loading dose regimen was more likely to achieve higher ery-MTX-PG concentration and better therapeutic response after 4 weeks of methotrexate treatment., (© 2024 The Author(s). British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

Objective: The objective was to develop consensus treatment plans (CTPs) for patients with refractory moderately severe juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs)., Methods: The Biologics Workgroup of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance JDM Research Committee used case-based surveys, consensus framework, and nominal group technique to produce bDMARD CTPs for patients with refractory moderately severe JDM., Results: Four bDMARD CTPs were proposed: tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) inhibitor (adalimumab or infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, and tocilizumab. Each CTP has different options for dosing and/or route. Among 76 respondents, consensus was achieved for the proposed CTPs (93% [67 of 72]) as well as for patient characteristics, assessments, outcome measures, and follow-up. By weighted average, respondents indicated that they would most likely administer rituximab, followed by abatacept, TNFα inhibitor, and tocilizumab., Conclusion: CTPs for the administration of bDMARDs in refractory moderately severe JDM were developed using consensus methodology. The implementation of the bDMARD CTPs will lay the groundwork for registry-based prospective comparative effectiveness studies., (© 2024 American College of Rheumatology. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Aims: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), interleukin (IL)-6 affects the activity of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes. Treatment with anti-IL-6 therapy can reverse the IL-6-mediated downregulation of CYP enzymes, resulting in changes in plasma levels of CYP substrates. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the IL-6 inhibitor olokizumab on the pharmacokinetics of CYP probe substrates in subjects with active RA., Methods: Seventeen patients with active RA were orally administered a phenotyping cocktail of midazolam (CYP3A4 substrate), omeprazole (CYP2C19 substrate), warfarin (CYP2C9 substrate) and caffeine (CYP1A2 substrate) alone and 2 weeks after a single subcutaneous injection of 128 mg olokizumab. The pharmacokinetic parameters of each substrate were calculated using noncompartmental analysis., Results: Sixteen of 17 enrolled patients received the complete doses of the cocktail drugs and olokizumab and were eligible for the pharmacokinetic evaluations. After single-dose administration of olokizumab, the exposure of midazolam and omeprazole decreased by 30-33% and 26-32%, respectively, compared to when the substrates were administered along via cocktail. In the presence of olokizumab, caffeine exposure increased by 19-23% compared to caffeine administration alone. There were no significant changes in S-warfarin exposure., Conclusion: In patients with active RA, olokizumab potentially reverses the IL-6-mediated suppression of CYP3A4 and CYP2C19. According to FDA guidance, olokizumab is considered a weak inducer of CYP3A4 and CYP2C19., (© 2024 British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: Janus kinase inhibitors are an effective option for achieving sustained remission or low disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Filgotinib is a Janus kinase 1-preferential inhibitor available in two doses for moderate-to-severe RA. We report the long-term efficacy and safety of filgotinib., Methods: In the ongoing long-term extension study FINCH 4 (NCT03025308), patients continue filgotinib 200 mg or 100 mg from FINCH 1, 2 or 3 or receive filgotinib 200 mg or 100 mg de novo. Efficacy assessments up to week 156 include American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20), Disease Activity Score 28 using C-reactive protein of <2.6, Clinical Disease Activity Index of ≤2.8, Simplified Disease Activity Index of ≤3.3 and Boolean remission (1.0 and 2.0) with non-responder imputation., Results: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, 60.2% and 54.6% receiving de novo filgotinib 200 mg and 100 mg had an ACR20 at week 156, respectively, as did 67.3% and 59.5% of those who continued filgotinib 200 mg and 100 mg. At week 156, Boolean remission 1.0 was achieved by 18.8% and 15.4% of patients treated with de novo filgotinib 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively, and by 21.1% and 18.5% when Boolean 2.0 criteria were applied. Similar efficacy data were seen in patients from FINCH 2 and 3. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profile of filgotinib., Conclusion: In FINCH 4, filgotinib 200 mg and 100 mg (continuous or de novo) demonstrated sustained efficacy up to week 156 in patients enrolled from FINCH 1, 2 or 3, with no unexpected safety results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MHB reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Galapagos, Gilead and Pfizer (all paid to host institution); speaker fees from AbbVie (paid to host institution); and grant/research support from Gilead (paid to host institution). DA reports consultancy fees, speaker fees and grant/research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and Sanofi. BGC reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen and Roche-Chugai; and speaker fees from AbbVie, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Pfizer and Roche-Chugai. YT reports speaker fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer, Taisho and Taiho; and research grants from Asahi Kasei, Chugai, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe and Taisho. RC reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Accord, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB; and speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. HS-K reports consultancy fees and speaker fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos and Pfizer. TT reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Astellas Pharma, Eli Lilly Japan and Gilead; and speaker fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Astellas Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Gilead and Pfizer Japan. J-EG reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer; and grant/research support from AbbVie, BMS, Lilly and Pfizer. RB reports consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer; speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi; and grant/research support from AbbVie and Roche. PV reports consultancy fees from Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Nordic Pharma and Sidekick Health; speaker fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos and Roularta; and grant/research support from Galapagos and Pfizer. AZ-S has no disclosures of interest to report. FDL is a former employee of, and shareholder in, Galapagos. EVEO reports consultancy fees from Galapagos and Janssen and is a shareholder in UCB. VR is a former employee of Galapagos and current employee of GSK Vaccines. PE reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead and Novartis; speaker fees from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis and Samsung; and grant/research support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly and Samsung., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The availability of a number of bDMARDs with different mechanism of action increases potential treatment pathways in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In clinical practice, following the failure of one bDMARD, it is normal to consider which options are the best for switching strategy. In most cases this choice involves IL17i and TNFi. The main aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of cycling (from TNFi to another TNFi) and swapping (from TNFi to IL17i or vice versa) strategies. In this monocentric retrospective observational study, all PsA patients treated with TNFi or IL17i between January 2016 and January 2022 were enrolled. The prescriptions were clustered in one cycling group (CG), and two swap groups: from TNFi to IL17i (SG1) and from IL17i to TNFi (SG2). The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression models were applied to compare the drug retention rates and to identify factors affecting treatment persistence. A total of 122 patients were enrolled. The CG, SG1 and SG2 2-years retention rates were 51%, 58% and 34% (p = 0.1), respectively. SG1 strategy (HR 0.53; CI 0.31-0.89; p = 0.02), age (HR 0.98; CI 0.96-0.99; p = 0.003), Disease Activity PsA (HR 1.11; CI 1.08-1.13; p < 0.0001), year of switch (HR 1.78; CI 1.39-2.22; p < 0.0001) influenced the retention rate. The findings of this real-world study, even if burdened by bias related to its observational nature, support the hypothesis that in PsA patients swapping from TNFi to IL17i might be more effective than cycling TNFis., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To demonstrate efficacy equivalence of CT-P47 and EU-approved reference tocilizumab (r-TCZ) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: This double-blind, phase III study randomised (1:1) patients to receive CT-P47 or r-TCZ (8 mg/kg) every 4 weeks until week 20 during treatment period (TP) 1. Prior to week 24 dosing, patients receiving r-TCZ were randomised (1:1) to continue r-TCZ or switch to CT-P47; patients receiving CT-P47 continued CT-P47 (TP2, 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks until week 48). The dual primary endpoints (for different regulatory requirements) were mean changes from baseline in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28; erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)) at week 12 and week 24. Efficacy equivalence was determined if CIs for the treatment difference were within predefined equivalence margins: (95% CI -0.6, 0.6 (analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)) at week 12 or 90% CI -0.6, 0.5 (ANCOVA with multiple imputation) at week 24). Additional efficacy, pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety endpoints, including immunogenicity, were investigated. Findings up to week 32 are presented., Results: In TP1, 471 patients were randomised (234 CT-P47; 237 r-TCZ). The 95% and 90% CIs for the estimated treatment differences were contained within the predefined equivalence margins; the estimated difference in DAS28-ESR at week 12 was -0.01 (95% CI -0.26, 0.24) and at week 24 was -0.10 (90% CI -0.30, 0.10). Secondary efficacy endpoints, PKs and overall safety were comparable between groups up to week 32., Conclusions: Efficacy equivalence, alongside comparable PK, safety and immunogenicity profiles, was determined between CT-P47 and r-TCZ in adults with RA, including after switching from r-TCZ to CT-P47., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JSS has received payments to institution from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Galapagos, and Roche; personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Ananda, Astro, BMS, Celltrion, Inc., Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Immunovant, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, R-Pharma, Samsung, Sanofi, and UCB; payments or honoraria from Eli Lilly; and support for meeting attendance from Eli Lilly. MK has received support for meeting attendance from Accord, Egis, Medac, and Sandoz. SJ has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Celltrion, Inc., Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB; and payments or honoraria from AbbVie, Celltrion, Inc., Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB. RW has received speaker fees from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, SOBI, and UCB; support for meeting attendance from AbbVie; and is involved in the leadership of the Polish Rheumatology Society. MKW has received payments or honoraria from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, SOBI and UCB; and support for meeting attendance from AbbVie, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and SOBI. PH has received research grants from Celltrion, Inc. GB has received honoraria for consulting and lectures from Celltrion, Inc., Chugai, Fresenius, and Sanofi. EK has received consulting fees/served on advisory boards for AbbVie, Celltrion, Inc., Eli Lilly, GSK, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Samsung Bioepsis; and has received speaker fees from AbbVie, Celltrion, Inc., GSK, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Sandoz. SHK is an employee of Celltrion, Inc. YJB, YBJ, GEY, and JWH are employees of Celltrion, Inc., and hold stocks in Celltrion, Inc. JT, AR, JJ, AZ, AD, KK, and PAK report no disclosures., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Early treatment of individuals at risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA-risk) in the preclinical phase has the potential to positively impact both patients and society by preventing disease onset and improving patients' quality of life. The PRAIRI study was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with the B-cell depleting agent rituximab (RTX), which resulted in a significant delay of arthritis development of up to 12 months in seropositive RA-risk individuals. Here, we report our findings on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this study population., Methods: Seventy-eight RA-risk individuals were treated with one single dose of either placebo (PBO) or 1000 mg RTX plus 100 mg methylprednisolone (MP) and anti-histamines, regardless of treatment allocation, as co-medication. Data on quality of life were collected at baseline and 1, 4, 6, 12 and 24 months using established PRO questionnaires (visual analogue scale (VAS) pain, health assessment questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI) score, EuroQol five dimension (EQ-5D) and both physical and mental component score of the 36-item short-form heath survey (SF-36))., Results: No significant changes in quality of life over a 2 year follow-up were observed in at-risk individuals treated with RTX compared to PBO given the PRO scores at 24 months (mean difference±SEM: HAQ score=0.07±0.16; EQ-5D=-0.02±0.05; VAS pain=11.11±7.40). Furthermore, no significant effect of treatment on perceived arthritis severity at the time of clinically manifest disease (arthritis) was found., Conclusion: One single dose of RTX plus MP administered to RA-risk individuals does not have a meaningful and measurable positive effect on PROs after 2 years of follow-up and/or perceived disease severity at the time of arthritis development., Trial Registration Number: Trial registered at EU Clinical Trial Register, EudraCT Number: 2009-010955-29 (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=Prevention+of+RA+by+B+cell+directed+therapy)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GF, SHMC, RBML, KIM, DMG, PPT, NdV and LGMvB report no conflict of interest. RFvV reports institutional grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB, as well as institutional fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BSM, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, RemeGen and UCB, all outside the submitted work. SWT reports institutional grants from GSK, Lilly, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Galapagos, Citryll and Galvani bioelectronics, as well as institutional fees from NovoNordisk, Pfizer, AbbVie and UCB, all outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients face different health challenges when infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) than the general population, due to both their immunocompromised state and the immunosuppressive therapies they receive. This systematic literature review, which follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) paradigm, explores the interactions between RA and SARS-CoV-2 infection, focusing on immunologic issues, disease management, vaccination, and adverse outcomes. In order to obtain the most relevant information, we systematically reviewed the specific literature from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2023, based on the PRISMA method, by which we eventually selected 35 eligible articles, to which we added other ISI-indexed studies to enrich our results further. Consequently, we performed a funnel analysis to evaluate the potential for publication bias. Firstly, the data collected revealed the impact of the pandemic on RA diagnoses and the fear of face-to-face medical consultations that delayed adequate treatment. Secondly, cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities increase the risk of prolonged COVID-19 symptoms, hospitalization, and severe COVID-19 outcomes for RA patients. With respect to immunosuppressive treatment used to control RA, it was observed that glucocorticoids (especially high-dose usage) and Rituximab (RTX) predispose the patients to poor SARS-CoV-2 outcomes, as opposed to Baricitinib and interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors. COVID-19 vaccination has proven effective and generally safe for RA patients in some studies, although therapies with Methotrexate (MTX), Abatacept (ABA), and RTX have been associated with impaired vaccine immune response. This systematic literature review brings updated and thorough information with respect to the immunological, clinical, and management of a complex immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) like RA in the setting of COVID-19 and underlines the challenges faced by this group of patients. The lessons learned can be extended beyond the pandemic in shaping a more informed and compassionate healthcare system and offering long-term medical care for patients with RA.

Background: The optimal retreatment strategy with rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remains a point of discussion. Depending on local guidelines, rituximab can either be administered at fixed intervals or when losing disease control, balancing therapeutic effectiveness with drug overexposure. However, treatment based on loss of disease control may significantly affect patients' lives, provoking uncertainty and potentially leading to progressive joint damage. Moreover, as low-dose rituximab proved to be effective in treating RA while decreasing toxicity, drug exposure may be limited by tapering down rituximab doses guided by disease activity., Methods: RITUXERA is a 104-week open-label multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial. In total, 134 patients with RA treated with rituximab will be 1:1 randomised when in need of retreatment (DAS28-CRP ≥ 3.2 with previous rituximab administration at least 24 weeks earlier) to either a treat-to-target-driven fixed dose retreatment strategy (usual care group) or fixed interval disease-activity guided dose optimisation strategy (experimental group). The usual care group will be retreated with fixed rituximab doses (1 × 1000 mg IV) in case of loss of disease control (DAS28-CRP ≥ 3.2). The experimental group will receive a 24-weekly rituximab treatment while tapering down the dose in a decreasing sequence if DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2: 1 × 1000 mg IV (maximal dose), 1 × 500 mg IV, and 1 × 200 mg IV (minimal dose). If DAS28-CRP exceeds 3.2 at the six-monthly retreatment, patients will receive and remain on the previous effective dose. Study visits are planned every 12 weeks. Primary outcome is the comparison of longitudinal patient-reported disease impact over 104 weeks, measured with the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) instrument, analysed using a linear mixed model. Main secondary outcome is the comparison of longitudinal disease activity (DAS28-CRP) over 104 weeks., Discussion: The RITUXERA trial aims to explore the optimal retreatment strategy with rituximab for RA in terms of long-term patient-reported disease impact, by proposing a fixed interval disease activity-guided dose optimisation strategy as compared to a treat-to-target fixed dose strategy., Trial Registration: CTIS 2023-506638-59-01 (registration date: 07 September 2023), ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06003283 (registration date: 17 August 2023)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Chronic anterior uveitis (CAU) carries a significant risk for eye complications and vision loss. The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) introduced consensus treatment plans (CTPs) to standardize treatment for CAU and facilitate future comparative effectiveness studies. Two CTPs were developed to address: 1) initiation of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with CAU naïve to steroid-sparing therapy, and 2) initiation of a TNF inhibitor (TNFi) in patients with severe uveitis or uveitis refractory to MTX. We evaluated implementation of the uveitis CTPs using existing CARRA Registry infrastructure and assessed feasibility of the CTPs for comparative effectiveness research., Methods: This prospective observational cohort study was conducted at nine pilot sites between February 2020 and August 2022. Patients with JIA-associated CAU (JIA-U) were treated according to either the MTX or TNFi CTP. Uveitis activity and medication use were recorded at 0, 3, and 6 months. We assessed patient enrollment rates, CTP arm selection, uveitis control, and quality of data collection. We also evaluated CTP arm selection in a retrospective cohort of similar JIA-U patients enrolled in the CARRA Registry during the same study period., Results: Seventeen patients were included in the pilot cohort. Eight were treated with the MTX CTP (4 oral MTX, 4 subcutaneous MTX), and 9 with the TNFi CTP (9 received standard-dose adalimumab, none selected high-dose adalimumab or infliximab). Uveitis was controlled in 13 of 17 patients by 6 months. Query of the CARRA-wide Registry identified 42 patients with JIA-U who were treated according to the MTX or TNFi CTPs. Among these, 26 were treated with MTX (8 oral, 18 subcutaneous) and 16 with TNFi (12 standard dose adalimumab, 2 high dose adalimumab, and 2 infliximab)., Conclusion: Both the MTX and TNFi uveitis CTPs can practically be implemented in clinical settings and are currently being utilized across Registry sites. However, in patients starting TNFi therapy, all pilot study participants and most patients across the CARRA Registry were treated with a standard dose of adalimumab. This consensus on the treatment approach underscores its broad acceptance but also limits the applicability of the uveitis TNFi CTP for comparative effectiveness research., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To assess impact of bimekizumab treatment on patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), using 16-week data from two phase 3 studies., Methods: BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-naïve) and BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; tumour necrosis factor inhibitor inadequate response/intolerance (TNFi-IR)) are phase 3 studies of subcutaneous bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W; both were double-blind and placebo-controlled to 16 weeks. Patients were randomised 3:2:1 to bimekizumab, placebo or reference (subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg Q2W) in BE OPTIMAL; 2:1 to bimekizumab or placebo in BE COMPLETE. Patient-reported outcomes for pain, fatigue, physical function and HRQoL are reported to week 16 using pooled and individual study data for bimekizumab and placebo patients., Results: 1073/1112 (96.5%) patients completed week 16 (bimekizumab:‍ 677/698 [97.0%]; placebo: 396/414 [95.7%]). Bimekizumab-treated patients achieved rapid improvements vs placebo in pain, fatigue, physical function and HRQoL by week 4, after a single dose. Improvements continued to week 16 for all patient-reported outcomes, including Pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; mean (95% CI) change from baseline: bimekizumab: -‍25.2 [-27.2, -23.1]; placebo:‍ -‍5.7 [-8.2, -3.3]) and FACIT-Fatigue (bimekizumab: 4.5 [3.9, 5.1]; placebo: 1.1 [0.3, 2.0]); both nominal p<0.001. Greater proportions of bimekizumab-treated patients achieved minimal clinically important differences for patient-reported symptoms vs placebo, including FACIT-Fatigue (bimekizumab: 53.1%; placebo: 36.3%) and HAQ-DI (bimekizumab:‍ 53.0%; placebo: 28.7%); both nominal p<0.001., Conclusion: Bimekizumab treatment demonstrated rapid and greater improvements in patient-reported pain, fatigue, physical function and HRQoL to week 16 vs placebo in bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR patients., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03895203; NCT03896581., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MEH: Advisory board member and consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. PJM: Research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Acelyrin, Aclaris, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Moonlake Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB; speakers’ bureau for AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. JFM: Affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA at time of analysis; currently affiliated with UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; consultant and/or investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and UCB. WT: Research grants, consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Ovo Pharma, Pfizer and UCB. NG, JC, JL: Employees and shareholders of UCB. BI: Employee of UCB; shareholder of AbbVie, GSK and UCB. VT: Employee of UCB. DDG: Consultant and/or received grant support from Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Equivalent efficacy and comparable pharmacokinetic, immunogenicity, and safety profiles of the biosimilar BAT1806/BIIB800 and reference tocilizumab (TCZ) in participants with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been reported up to week 24 (treatment period [TP] 1) of the phase 3 study. Here we present results for TP2 (study weeks 24-48)., Methods: In this phase 3, multicenter, multiregional, double-blind, active-controlled, equivalence study, participants with active RA despite methotrexate were randomized (1:1:2) to intravenous administration of 8 mg/kg TCZ every 4 weeks to week 48 (TCZ group), or TCZ to week 24 followed by BAT1806/BIIB800 to week 48 (TCZ to BAT1806/BIIB800 group), or BAT1806/BIIB800 to week 48 (BAT1806/BIIB800 group). Efficacy in TP2 was evaluated using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria (ACR20/50/70) and change from baseline in Disease Activity Score on 28 joints (DAS28). Pharmacokinetics (trough levels), safety, and immunogenicity were also evaluated., Results: Of 621 randomized participants, 577 (92.9%) completed TP1 and entered TP2 (TCZ: N = 145 [93.5%]; TCZ to BAT1806/BIIB800: N = 142 [92.2%]; BAT1806/BIIB800: N = 290 [92.9%]). Proportions of ACR20 responders were similar between treatment groups throughout TP2 (87.8%, 90.3%, and 90.4%, respectively, at week 48), as were proportions of ACR50 and ACR70 responders, and reduction in DAS28. Drug trough levels and antidrug antibody incidences were comparable between the treatment groups. Adverse events were balanced across the treatment groups and no fatal events were reported., Conclusion: In TP2, efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetic profiles were comparable between the TCZ, TCZ to BAT1806/BIIB800, and BAT1806/BIIB800 groups., Trial Registration: NCT03830203 and EudraCT 2018-002202-31., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

A transdermal delivery system offers high bioavailability and favorable patient adherence, constituting an optimal approach for localized administration in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. However, the stratum corneum (SC) impedes the delivery efficiency of conventional transdermal drug delivery systems. Microneedles (MNs) can temporarily create micropores within the SC, enabling drug distribution via bypassing this barrier and enhancing transdermal delivery effectiveness. Notably, MNs provide a painless method of drug delivery through the skin and may directly modulate inflammation in immune cells by delivering drugs via the lymphatic system during transdermal administration. However, the MN delivery system is not suitable for drugs with low water solubility and stability. Additionally, major concerns exist regarding the safety of using MN delivery for highly cytotoxic drugs, given that it could result in high local drug concentration at the delivery site. While MNs exhibit some degree of targeted delivery to the immune and inflammatory environment, their targeting efficiency remains suboptimal. Nanoformulations have the potential to significantly address the limitations of MNs in RA treatment by improving drug targeting, solubility, stability, and biocompatibility. Therefore, this review provides a concise overview of the advantages, disadvantages, and mechanisms of different types of MNs for RA treatment. It specifically focuses on the application and advantages of combining nanoformulation with MNs for RA treatment and summarizes the current trends in the development of nanoformulations combined with MNs in the field of RA treatment, offering theoretical support for future advancements and clinical applications., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This post hoc analysis evaluated the relationship between objective measures of inflammation and clinical outcomes following 12 weeks of certolizumab pegol (CZP) treatment in patients with active axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)., Methods: We report the proportion of patients achieving ≥50% and ≥75% improvements in clinical composite outcome measures of disease activity (Axial Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS], Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI]) and objective measures of inflammation (C reactive protein [CRP], Ankylosing Spondylitis spine MRI score [ASspiMRI-a] Berlin score and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada [SPARCC] MRI Sacroiliac Joints [SIJ] score) following 12 weeks of CZP treatment. Data from two independent readers over four MRI reading campaigns were pooled using a mixed model with repeated measures for each variable., Results: 136 patients (radiographic axSpA [r-axSpA]: 76; non-radiographic axSpA [nr-axSpA]: 60) were included. Following CZP treatment, CRP, ASspiMRI-a Berlin score and SPARCC SIJ score were reduced by ≥50% in most patients (CRP: 136/136 [100.0%]; Berlin: 73/136 [53.7%]; SPARCC SIJ: 71/136 [52.2%]), and often by ≥75%. Less than half of patients with r-axSpA and nr-axSpA showed ≥50% reduction in clinical responses (BASDAI: 64/136 [47.1%]; ASDAS: 66/136 [48.5%]). These results were also observed at the individual patient level; ≥50% improvements in MRI/CRP inflammatory measures did not translate into similar improvements in clinical responses for most patients., Conclusion: There is a potential disconnect between objective measures of inflammation and clinical outcome responses in patients with axSpA. The use of only clinical response measures as trial endpoints may underestimate anti-inflammatory treatment effects., Trial Registration Number: NCT01087762., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MR: Speakers bureau from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma; consultant of AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma. HM-O: Research grants from Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. Speaking honoraria and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB Pharma. HM-O is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Biomedical Research Centre (LBRC). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the (UK) National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR, or the (UK) Department of Health. VN-C: Speakers bureau for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; consultant for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MoonLake, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; grant/research support from AbbVie and Novartis. RT: Veramed statistical consultant for UCB Pharma. TK, LB, NdP and MK: Employee and stockholder of UCB Pharma. FvdB: Consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; speakers bureau for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy profiles of ozoralizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the OHZORA, NATSUZORA and HOSHIZORA trials., Methods: This study conducted an integrated analysis of the three trials. Patients who completed the OHZORA trial with concomitant treatment of ozoralizumab and methotrexate (MTX) or the NATSUZORA trial without MTX were eligible to participate in the long-term extension HOSHIZORA trial. Safety assessment was performed in the safety analysis set, and the incidence rate per 100 person-year (PY) was calculated for a summary of adverse events (AEs) and AEs of special interests (AESIs). The efficacy was analysed in terms of disease activity index response rates and functional remission., Results: The OHZORA and NATSUZORA trials enrolled 521 patients, of whom 401 patients entered the HOSHIZORA trial and 279 completed the long-term extension treatment with a mean treatment duration of 200 weeks and total exposure of 1419.34 PY in all enrolled patients. Of the patients, 96.9% demonstrated ≥1 AEs, which is mostly mild to moderate. One death was observed, but no conspicuous AEs emerged and no specific concerns in AESIs were found through the long-term administration. The efficacy assessment revealed the maintained American College of Rheumatology response rates of 20%, 50%, and 70% during the trials., Conclusion: This integrated analysis revealed no new safety concerns, and the efficacy was maintained in patients with RA under long-term ozoralizumab administration., Trial Registration Number: jRCT2080223971, jRCT2080223973, NCT04077567., Competing Interests: Competing interests: YT has received speaking fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Eisai, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Taisho, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer, UCB, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Taisho, Chugai. TT has received speaking fees and/or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, AbbVie, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Gilead Sciences, Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma, Taisho Pharmaceutical Holding, Pfizer Japan, Janssen Pharmaceutical, received consulting fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma, Taisho Pharmaceutical Holding, Eli Lilly Japan. YM, MK and HY are employees of Taisho Pharmaceutical., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most common forms of arthritis. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) has been identified as a viable alternative therapeutic approach in light of the present protracted clinical course of pharmacological treatment, and changes in levels of marker proteins in the blood samples of RA patients can be utilized to assess treatment outcomes., Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted involving forty patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were assigned randomly to two groups. The first group received a combination of diclofenac and methotrexate (MTX) consisting of 25 mg of diclofenac administered thrice daily and 15 mg of MTX administered once weekly. Individual follow-up assessments were carried out after 7 and 14 days. Meanwhile, patients in the second group underwent two sessions of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (ESWT), with a 7-day interval between sessions. Evaluations were conducted on day 7 and day 14. Patients who displayed pain control and stability were advised to continue the treatment, whereas those who had inflammation and discomfort were administered specific medications, and their progress was closely monitored until day 28. Blood samples were collected from both groups prior to treatment, after the first treatment, and after the second treatment. Four marker proteins (NRP-1, CELF-6, COX-2, and RGS-1) and two inflammatory cytokines (IL-6 and IL-17) were measured using western blot and RT-PCR techniques. A statistical analysis was conducted on the levels of specific proteins and inflammatory factors before and after treatment to evaluate its impact., Result: Both groups exhibited statistically significant differences in the serum level of target biomarkers before and after the intervention. However, the ESWT group demonstrated a more noticeable effect, while the diclofenac + MTX group exhibited a delayed anti-inflammatory effect compared to ESWT., Conclusion: Both treatments significantly improved joint function, relieved pain, and reduced inflammation in patients. However, ESWT demonstrated a more prominent clinical analgesic effect compared to the combination treatment of diclofenac and MTX. Furthermore, ESWT produced a more immediate and noteworthy anti-inflammatory impact by regulating NRP-1 expression, a trophic factor receptor that facilitates vascular endothelial cell migration and tissue repair through angiogenesis, and regulating RGS-1 to limit inflammatory signal transmission and immune cell activation., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Mei Zhang et al.)

Objectives: To investigate if patients with early rheumatoid arthritis responding insufficiently to initial methotrexate (MTX) and bridging glucocorticoids (GCs) could benefit from early but temporary etanercept introduction as a second remission-induction attempt., Methods: CareRA2020 (NCT03649061) was a 2-year, open-label, multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Treatment-naïve patients started MTX and GC bridging (COBRA-Slim: CS). Within a time window from week (W) 8 until W32, early insufficient responders (28-joint Disease Activity Score - C-reactive Protein (DAS28-CRP) >3.2 between W8 and W32 or ≥2.6 at W32) were randomised to a Standard-CS strategy (adding leflunomide first) or Bio-induction-CS strategy (adding etanercept for 24 weeks). Additional treatment adaptations followed the treat-to-target principle. Longitudinal disease activity (DAS28-CRP) over 104 weeks (primary outcome), achievement of DAS28-CRP <2.6 28 weeks after randomisation, and biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) use at W104 were compared between randomisation groups., Results: Following CS treatment, 142 patients were early responders; 55 early insufficient responders received Standard-CS and 55 Bio-induction-CS. Superiority of Bio-induction-CS over Standard-CS could not be demonstrated (ß=-0.204, (95% CI -0.486 to 0.078), p=0.157) for the primary outcome. More patients on Bio-induction-CS achieved DAS28-CRP <2.6 at 28 weeks after randomisation (59% (95% CI 44% to 72%) vs 44% (95% CI 31% to 59%) in Standard-CS) and they were treated less frequently with b/tsDMARDs at W104 (19/55, 35%) compared with Standard-CS (29/55, 53%)., Conclusion: Half of the patients responded well to initial COBRA-Slim induction therapy. In early insufficient responders, adding etanercept for 6 months did not improve disease control over 104 weeks versus adding leflunomide first. However, temporary introduction of etanercept resulted in improved disease control early after randomisation and less patients on b/tsDMARDs at W104., Trial Registration Number: NCT03649061., Ctr Pilot Approval Belgium: S59474, EudraCT number: 2017-004054-41., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RJ received consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, AbbVie; speakers fee from Novartis; support for meeting/travel from Fresenius Kabi; and participation on advisory board from AbbVie, Amgen, Novartis and Fresenius Kabi. KT received consulting fees and payment/honoraria for speakers/manuscript writing/education from Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, Otsuka, Celltrion, Galapagos, Viatris, UCB and Sandoz. JV received support for meeting/travel from UCB and Novartis. SA received support for meeting/travel from Eli Lilly, payment/honoraria for speakers/manuscript writing/education from Eli Lilly, and was member of Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO) expert panel. AD received consulting fees from Amgen, support for meeting/travel from Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Sanofi and UCB; participation on data safety monitoring board/advisory board from Agmen. MD reported a grant from Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO), and support for meeting/travel from AbbVie, Novartis, Galapagos and UCB. EDM reported a grant from Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO). RW received consulting fees from Galapagos, and payment/honoraria for speakers/manuscript writing/education from Galapagos and Celltrion. PV received institution grants from Pfizer, Galapagos; consulting fees from Galapagos, Sidekick Health, Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim; payment/honoraria for speakers/manuscript writing/education from Eli Lilly, Galapagos and Roularta; support for meeting/travel from AbbVie; participation on data safety monitoring board/advisory board from Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, AbbVie, Celltrion and vice president of the Royal Belgian Society for Rheumatology. The remaining authors declared no disclosures., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This study provides a detailed understanding of the preclinical pharmacokinetics and metabolism of ELP-004, an osteoclast inhibitor in development for the treatment of bone erosion. Current treatments for arthritis, including biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, are not well-tolerated in a substantial subset of arthritis patients and are expensive; therefore, new treatments are needed. Pharmacokinetic parameters of ELP-004 were tested with intravenous, oral, and subcutaneous administration and found to be rapidly absorbed and distributed. We found that ELP-004 was non-mutagenic, did not induce chromosome aberrations, non-cardiotoxic, and had minimal off-target effects. Using in vitro hepatic systems, we found that ELP-004 is primarily metabolized by CYP1A2 and CYP2B6 and predicted metabolic pathways were identified. Finally, we show that ELP-004 inhibits osteoclast differentiation without suppressing overall T-cell function. These preclinical data will inform future development of an oral compound as well as in vivo efficacy studies in mice., (© 2024 The Author(s). Pharmacology Research & Perspectives published by British Pharmacological Society and American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: Evaluation in real clinical practice of the effectiveness and safety of levilimab therapy in patients with highly and moderately active rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study (6 months) involving 35 patients with RA (29 women and 6 men, mean age 53.17±13.2 years) who were treated at the Ochapovsky Regional Clinic Hospital of Krasnodar Region. All patients included in the study were prescribed the drug levilimab (Ilsira)., Results: After 1 month of observation, there was a decrease in the clinical and laboratory activity of the process in the form of a decrease in the number of painful joints - 17.0 (14.0; 20.0) vs 8.0 (6.0; 10.0); p =0.000001, number of swollen joints - 3.0 (2.0; 4.0) vs 0.0 (0.0; 0.0); p =0.000002, reduction in pain intensity according to visual analog scale - 60.0 (60.0; 70.0) mm vs 30.0 (20.0; 40.0) mm ( p =0.000001). Also, by the end of the first month of therapy, there was a decrease in clinical activity indices DAS28-ESR by 43%, SDAI by 60%, CDAI by 55%. Positive dynamics of laboratory parameters were noted - a decrease in erythrocyte sedimentation rate by 76%, a decrease in C-reactive protein level by 98%. By the 6th month of therapy, a decrease in RF by 36% and ACCP by 11% was recorded, but the dynamics of these indicators did not reach statistical significance. By the end of 4 weeks of treatment, 24 (68.6%) patients showed an increase in the level of total blood cholesterol - 5.1 (3.91; 6.0) mmol/L vs 6.1 (4.99; 7.07) mmol/L ( p =0.000006), while 11 (45.8%) patients from this group had initially elevated cholesterol levels (6.4±0.6 mmol/L). In 5 (14.3%) patients, an increase in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) was recorded in the 4th week - 17.0 (11.0; 25.0) U/L vs 32.0 (22.0; 43.0) U/L ( p =0.000062) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) - 19.0 (14.0; 24.0) U/L vs 25.0 (18.0; 36.0) U/L ( p =0.000171), in 1 (2.85%) of the patient, an increase in ALT and AST above normal was noted (ALT 144 U/L, AST 52 U/L), which required discontinuation of levilimab. In 2 (5.7%) patients, by the end of the 4th week a decrease in the absolute number of neutrophils was registered - 3.2 (2.6; 4.0)×10E 9 /L vs 2.3 (2.0; 2.5)×10E 9 /L ( p =0.002), which did not require discontinuation of treatment, since the number of cells remained more than 1×10E 9 /L. During treatment with levilimab 162 mg subcutaneously once a week, the proportion of patients taking prednisolone decreased from 46% at the start of therapy to 11% at the end of 6 months of therapy., Conclusion: Levilimab is a highly effective drug for the treatment of patients with highly and moderately active RA and has a favorable tolerability and safety profile.

Background: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy over 5 years among MTX-naïve patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the long-term extension (LTE) of the phase 3 SELECT-EARLY trial., Methods: Patients were randomized to receive upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg or MTX. Patients who did not achieve CDAI remission and had < 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts at week 26 received rescue therapy (addition of MTX in the upadacitinib group and addition of upadacitinib in the MTX group). Efficacy assessments were evaluated over 5 years and are reported as observed (AO) for patients who received continuous monotherapy with upadacitinib 15/30 mg or MTX and by randomized group applying non-responder imputation (NRI). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) per 100 patient-years were summarized over 5 years., Results: Of 945 patients randomized and treated, 775 (82%) completed week 48 and entered the LTE on study drug. Higher proportions of patients consistently achieved disease activity targets over 5 years with upadacitinib than MTX. In AO analyses, 53%/59% of patients attained CDAI remission with upadacitinib 15/30 mg versus 43% with MTX at week 260. NRI analyses showed better CDAI, DAS28(CRP), and ACR responses with upadacitinib relative to MTX at week 260 (all comparisons, nominal P < .001). Upadacitinib treatment also resulted in numerically greater inhibition of structural joint progression through week 260 compared to MTX. Most TEAEs, serious AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were numerically higher in patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of serious infections, herpes zoster, creatine phosphokinase elevation, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and neutropenia were numerically higher with upadacitinib than MTX. The observed safety profile of upadacitinib over 5 years was consistent with earlier trial results and integrated phase 3 safety analyses., Conclusions: Upadacitinib showed better clinical responses versus MTX in patients with RA throughout the 5-year trial. Higher rates of several AEs were observed with upadacitinib, especially in the 30 mg group, compared to MTX. When used as monotherapy in MTX-naïve patients, the approved upadacitinib 15 mg dose showed better long-term efficacy versus MTX and an overall favorable benefit-risk profile., Trial Registration: NCT02706873., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The objective of this phase III clinical randomized trial was to establish the therapeutic equivalence of biosimilar etanercept (bio-etanercept) with original etanercept (O-etanercept) for patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: The study (NCT04079374) enrolled patients with moderate to high disease activity rheumatoid arthritis. Enrolled patients were randomized 1:1 into 2 treatment groups, 1 receiving bio-etanercept (study drug) and the other receiving O-etanercept (comparator) at a dose of 25mg twice weekly, for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of patients with an ACR20 response after 24 weeks of treatment. Safety (adverse reaction/adverse event) and immunogenicity of both drugs were evaluated., Results: Among 156 patients (79 in the bio-etanercept group and 77 in the O-etanercept group) who completed 24-week treatment and 4-week follow-up, 82.3% (65 patients) and 90.9% (70 patients) achieved an ACR20 response in the bio-etanercept and O-etanercept groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .16). No significant differences in the occurrence of adverse reactions/adverse events were found between the 2 groups regardless of severity (P = .63 for mild, P = .43 for moderate and P > .99 for severe). The development of antibodies in the bio-etanercept group was observed in 4 (5.1%; visit 6), 4 (5.0%; visit 9), and 3 (3.8%; visit 11) patients, and in 5 (6.4%), 5 (6.5%), and 3 (4.1%) patients in the O-etanercept group. The differences between the 2 groups were not significant (P > .99)., Conclusions: This study showed that bio-etanercept was equivalent to the reference formulation., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib over 5 years among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a long-term extension (LTE) of the SELECT-BEYOND phase 3 trial., Methods: Patients refractory to ≥1 biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) received upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg once daily or placebo, in combination with background conventional synthetic DMARD(s). At week 12, patients randomised to placebo were switched to upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg. All patients who completed the week 24 visit could enter the LTE for up to 5 years. Efficacy was analysed as observed and by non-responder imputation through week 260. Treatment-emergent adverse events per 100 patient-years were summarised over 5 years., Results: Of the 498 patients randomised, 418 (84%) completed week 24 and entered the LTE. Of those who remained in the trial (n=80, upadacitinib 15 mg; n=81, upadacitinib 30 mg), 36%/36% and 81%/77% randomised to upadacitinib 15/30 mg were in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission or low disease activity at week 260, respectively (as observed). Approximately 47% of all patients who began in high disease activity demonstrated a CDAI improvement >12 at week 260 with upadacitinib 15/30 mg. Functional and pain-related outcomes also showed comparable improvements with both doses. Numerically higher rates of anaemia, herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase elevation were observed with upadacitinib 30 mg vs 15 mg. No new safety issues were identified., Conclusions: Upadacitinib 15/30 mg continued to be effective in treating clinical and functional outcomes in patients with RA. The safety profile observed over 5 years was consistent with earlier study-specific and integrated assessments of upadacitinib treatment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RF: research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer-Ingleheim, Flexion, Galapagos, Galvani, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Priovant, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB. CC-S: research grants from AbbVie, BMS, CSL Behring, Priovant Therapeutics, Alexion and Pfizer; consultant for AbbVie, Priovant Therapeutics, Octapharma, BMS, Recludix, Pfizer, Gilead and Regeneron-Sanofi. BC: consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Nordic, Pfizer. SH: research grants and consultancy fees from AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB and Novartis. AR-R: consulting fees from AbbVie, Gilead, Lilly, BMS and Sanofi; honoraria from AbbVie, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, BMS, Lilly, Gilead and Roche; payment for expert testimony from AbbVie and Gilead; support for travel or meeting attendance from Sanofi, Roche, Janssen, Pfizer and AbbVie; and compensation for participation on a data safety monitoring board from R-Pharm. HSC, NK, KMC and SM: employees of AbbVie and may hold stock or options., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To evaluate the long-term sustainability of response to the Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response or intolerance to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR) in the SELECT-BEYOND phase 3 trial., Methods: Patients on background conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) were treated once daily with upadacitinib 15 mg or placebo. Patients who completed the week 24 visit could enter a long-term extension of up to 5 years. The sustainability of response was assessed based on achievement of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Disease Activity Score 28-joint count using C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP)) targets and evaluated up to week 260 in all patients receiving the approved upadacitinib 15 mg dose, including those randomised to upadacitinib 15 mg and those who switched from placebo to upadacitinib 15 mg at week 12., Results: In this bDMARD-IR population, 45% (n=104/229) and 79% (n=172/219) of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg plus background csDMARD(s) achieved CDAI remission or CDAI low disease activity (LDA) at any point during the 5-year study, respectively. Of those who achieved CDAI remission/LDA, 25%/43% maintained their initial response through 240 weeks of follow-up after first achieving response. Most patients who lost remission or LDA were able to recapture that response by the cut-off date. Similar overall results were observed for SDAI and DAS28 (CRP). No strong predictors of response were identified., Conclusions: Over three-quarters of bDMARD-IR patients achieved CDAI LDA with upadacitinib, and almost half of those maintained LDA through 240 weeks of follow-up. Remission was achieved by nearly half of all patients and maintained in approximately a quarter of those achieving remission., Trial Registration Number: NCT02706847., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RFvV: Research support from BMS and UCB; support for educational programmes from AstraZeneca, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB; consultancy for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Pfizer, RemeGen and UCB; speaker for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer and UCB. SH: Research grants and consultancy fees from AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB and Novartis. AFW: Research support, speakers' bureau and consulting fees from AbbVie. RF: research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer-Ingleheim, Dren Bio, Flexion, Galapagos, Galvani, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Priovant, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB and Vyne. YS, SM and OT: Employees of AbbVie and may hold stock or options., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The potential benefit of methotrexate (MTX) in combination with biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is still a matter of debate., Objectives: To compare clinical and patient reported characteristics as well as drug retention rates in PsA patients receiving b/tsDMARD monotherapy or in combination with MTX., Methods: RABBIT-SpA is a prospective longitudinal cohort study including axSpA and PsA patients. In this analysis, PsA patients were stratified into two groups: starting b/tsDMARD as monotherapy or in combination with MTX. Treatment retention was compared by drug survival analysis., Results: 69% of the patients (n=900) started b/tsDMARD as monotherapy while 31% were treated in combination with MTX (n=405). At baseline, clinical domains like skin, nail and joint affection, dactylitis, enthesitis and axial involvement were similar between the groups. Only the patients' satisfaction concerning tolerability of the previous treatment was significantly better in the combination group at treatment start. Drug retention rates did not differ between the groups (p=0.4). At 6/12 months, 66%/48% of patients in monotherapy and 67%/48% in the combination group were still on their original treatment., Conclusions: We did not identify any clinical parameters with notable influence on the choice of b/tsDMARD mono or MTX-combination therapy in PsA. Drug retention rates are similar between mono and combination therapy. It seems that the decision to continue MTX at initiation of b/tsDMARDs is mostly based on the subjective tolerability of MTX treatment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ACR received speaker fees from lectures for Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche, all unrelated to this manuscript. AS received speaker fees from lectures for AbbVie, Celltrion, MSD, Roche, BMS, Lilly and Pfizer, all unrelated to this manuscript. There were no financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence (bias) this work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) management include patient assessment for biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) treatment response after at least 12 weeks of treatment. The current treat-to-target strategy for axSpA is to achieve inactive disease (ID; Axial Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) <1.3) or at least low disease activity (LDA; 1.3≤ASDAS<2.1).To investigate the association between treatment response at week 12 and/or week 24 and attainment of the ASDAS<2.1 treat-to-target recommendation at week 52 in bDMARD-naïve patients with radiographic (r-)axSpA treated with ixekizumab (IXE)., Methods: This post hoc analysis included patients randomly assigned to IXE 80 mg every 4 weeks from COAST-V (NCT02696785), a phase 3 trial in bDMARD-naïve patients with r-axSpA. The proportion of patients who achieved ASDAS<2.1 at week 52 was measured among those who attained or not clinically important improvement (CII, ∆ASDAS≥1.1) response, and among those with ID, LDA and high or very high disease activity at week 12 and/or week 24. Non-response was assumed for missing data., Results: Amongst 81 patients, 47 (58.0%) achieved ASDAS CII at week 12, with 70.2% (n=33) achieving ASDAS<2.1 at week 52. At week 24, 52 (64.2%) patients achieved ASDAS CII, with 71.2% (n=37) achieving ASDAS<2.1 at week 52. Of the 24 patients who did not achieve ASDAS CII at either week 12 or week 24, 5 (20.8%) achieved ASDAS<2.1 at week 52., Conclusion: This analysis reinforces the current recommendation that continuing treatment in those achieving ASDAS CII at week 12 and/or week 24 increases the likelihood of obtaining ID/LDA at week 52., Trial Registration Number: NCT02696785., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SR has received speaker and/or consultation fees and/or research support/grants from AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos NV, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB Pharma. CL has received speaker and/or consultation fees and/or research support/grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos NV, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. LB has received speaker and/or consultation fees and/or research support/grants from Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, JAMP Pharma, Fresenius Kabi, Teva, Organon and Sandoz. PW has received consulting payments, research funding, and/or honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi-Genzyme, SetPoint, Sun Pharma, Viela Bio, RegenLab, Paradigm, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Horizon and LG Chem. TP is an employee and shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. RB is an employee and shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. SL-L is a former employee of Eli Lilly and Company. BJ is an employee and shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. MJN has received speaker and/or consultation fees and/or research support/grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer and has received grant and/or research support from Novartis. JC-CW has received speaker and/or consultation fees and/or research support/grants from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, TSH Biopharm and UCB Pharma., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of nipocalimab in participants with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 antitumour necrosis factor agent., Methods: In this phase 2a study, participants with RA seropositive for anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) or rheumatoid factors were randomised 3:2 to nipocalimab (15 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) or placebo from Weeks 0 to 10. Efficacy endpoints (primary endpoint: change from baseline in Disease Activity Score 28 using C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) at Week 12) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed through Week 12. Safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were assessed through Week 18., Results: 53 participants were enrolled (nipocalimab/placebo, n=33/20). Although the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance for nipocalimab versus placebo, a numerically higher change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 12 was observed (least squares mean (95% CI): -1.03 (-1.66 to -0.40) vs -0.58 (-1.24 to 0.07)), with numerically higher improvements in all secondary efficacy outcomes and PROs. Serious adverse events were reported in three participants (burn infection, infusion-related reaction and deep vein thrombosis). Nipocalimab significantly and reversibly reduced serum immunoglobulin G, ACPA and circulating immune complex levels but not serum inflammatory markers, including CRP. ACPA reduction was associated with DAS28-CRP remission and 50% response rate in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria; participants with a higher baseline ACPA had greater clinical improvement., Conclusions: Despite not achieving statistical significance in the primary endpoint, nipocalimab showed consistent, numerical efficacy benefits in participants with moderate to severe active RA, with greater benefit observed for participants with a higher baseline ACPA., Trial Registration Number: NCT04991753., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PCT serves on a DSMB for Immunovant; serves as a consultant for AbbVie, Aqtual, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB and receives grants/research support from Galapagos. GS has no conflict of interest. TWJH receives grants/research support from Janssen. QW, FI, BZ, SGL, JSBS, YX, JHL, RAP, MJL, KM, HD, RRC, CSK, CAC, SG and KF are employees of Janssen and may hold stock in Johnson & Johnson., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objectives : Coadministration of natural products to enhance the potency of conventional antirheumatic treatment is of high interest. This study aimed to assess the impact of administration of silymarin (a nutritional supplement) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis under treatment with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Materials and Methods : One-hundred and twenty-two patients diagnosed with active rheumatoid arthritis and treated with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were randomly assigned to either control or intervention groups; the latter was supplemented with silymarin (300 mg/day) for 8 weeks. Indicators of disease activity, inflammatory markers, disease activity and disability indices, European League Against Rheumatism responses, fatigue, depression, and anxiety scores were determined at baseline and week 8. Results : Silymarin supplementation significantly reduced the number of tender and swollen joints, duration of morning stiffness, severity of pain, disease activity and disability indices, European League Against Rheumatism responses, levels of fatigue, depression, and anxiety. According to our results, silymarin substantially improved patients' general condition. Conclusions : Our study provides evidence for the benefits of silymarin supplementation to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

This observational study evaluated the impact of a sponsor company-provided Patient Support Program (PSP) on discontinuation of adalimumab in adult Australian patients eligible for Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS)-reimbursed adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS), Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA), Crohn's Disease (CD), Ulcerative Colitis (UC), or Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS). Patients initiating adalimumab between May 2018 and September 2019 were enrolled into two prospective cohorts based on their decision to opt for or decline the PSP (PSP or non-PSP cohorts). In addition, a historical, retrospective Non-PSP cohort was established from the Services Australia 10% PBS dataset by extracting data of patients initiating adalimumab prior to the introduction of adalimumab PSPs and based on adalimumab PBS listing dates (AS: April 2007 to March 2009; PsA/RA: January 2007 to December 2008; CD: January 2009 to December 2010; HS and UC indications not included). Follow-up for all cohorts was 12 months. The primary endpoint was the time to discontinuation, compared between the prospective PSP cohort and the prospective or retrospective Non-PSP cohort. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance the cohorts. A Cox proportional hazards model indicated no difference in time to discontinuation between the prospective PSP (n = 162) and non-PSP (n = 65) cohorts (HR [95% CI] = 1.256 [0.616-2.563], p = 0.5304). The 12-month adalimumab persistence rates (95% CI) were 78% (69%, 84%) and 82% (67%, 90%), respectively. In contrast, discontinuation was less likely in the prospective PSP (n = 151) compared with the retrospective non-PSP (n = 297) cohort (HR [95% CI] = 0.44 [0.28-0.68], p<0.001). The 12-month persistence rates (95% CI) were 81% (76%, 90%) and 61% (56%, 67%), respectively. Overall, this study suggests that optimal adalimumab persistence can be achieved with either a structured PSP or healthcare support from other sources, but this was not the case more than a decade ago., Competing Interests: There are no patents or products in development associated with this research to declare. A marketed product (HUMIRA® [Adalimumab]) is associated with this research., (Copyright: © 2024 Jones et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of PF‑06835375, a potent selective afucosyl immunoglobulin G1 antibody targeting C-X-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CXCR5) that potentially depletes B cells, follicular T helper (Tfh) cells, and circulating Tfh-like (cTfh) cells, in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: This first-in-human, multicenter, double-blind, sponsor-open, placebo-controlled Phase 1 study recruited patients aged 18-70 years with SLE or RA. In Part A, patients received single doses of intravenous PF-06835375 (dose range: 0.03-6 mg) or placebo in six sequential single ascending dose (SAD) cohorts. In Part B, patients received repeat doses of subcutaneous PF-06835375 (dose range: 0.3-10 mg) or placebo on Days 1 and 29 in five multiple ascending dose (MAD) cohorts. Tetanus/Diphtheria (Td) and Meningococcal B (MenB/Trumenba™) vaccines were administered at Day 4 (Td and MenB) and Week 8 (MenB only) to assess PF-06835375 functional effects. Endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), pharmacokinetic parameters, pharmacodynamic effects on B and cTfh cells, and biomarker counts, vaccine response, and exploratory differential gene expression analysis. Safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic endpoints are summarized descriptively. The change from baseline of B and Tfh cell-specific genes over time was calculated using a prespecified mixed-effects model, with a false discovery rate < 0.05 considered statistically significant., Results: In total, 73 patients were treated (SAD cohorts: SLE, n = 17; RA, n = 14; MAD cohorts: SLE, n = 22; RA, n = 20). Mean age was 53.3 years. Sixty-two (84.9%) patients experienced TEAEs (placebo n = 17; PF-06835375 n = 45); most were mild or moderate. Three (9.7%) patients experienced serious adverse events. Mean t 1/2 ranged from 3.4-121.4 h (SAD cohorts) and 162.0-234.0 h (MAD cohorts, Day 29). B and cTfh cell counts generally showed dose-dependent reductions across cohorts (range of mean maximum depletion: 67.3-99.3%/62.4-98.7% [SAD] and 91.1-99.6%/89.5-98.1% [MAD], respectively). B cell-related genes and pathways were significantly downregulated in patients treated with PF-06835375., Conclusions: These data support further development of PF-06835375 to assess the clinical potential for B and Tfh cell depletion as a treatment for autoimmune diseases., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03334851., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Clinical guidelines for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend reducing the use of glucocorticoids (GCs) due to the high risk of associated complications., Aim: To determine the frequency of GC cancellations and dose reductions in real clinical practice, while taking into account active RA therapy., Materials and Methods: The study group consisted of 303 patients with RA reliable according to ACR/EULAR criteria (women 79.9%, age 52.8±13.3, disease duration 9 [4; 16] years, DAS-28-CRP 4.9±1.0, RF seropositivity 77.4%, ACPA seropositivity 70.3%), who were prescribed or changed therapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or Janus kinase inhibitors (iJAK) due to disease exacerbation and ineffectiveness of previous treatment. All patients initially received GC (7.7±3.8 mg/day equivalent of prednisolone). After adjustment of therapy, 42.9% of patients received methotrexate, 27.6% leflunomide, 2.5% sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, or a combination with an Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 63.7% bDMARDs, and 7.2% iJAK. The need for GC intake was assessed by a telephone survey conducted 6 months after the start of follow-up., Results: Telephone survey was possible in 274 (90.4%) persons. There was a significant decrease in pain intensity (numerical rating scale, NRS 0-10) from 6.3±1.4 to 4.3±2.4 ( p <0.001), fatigue (NRS) from 6.7±2.3 to 5.2±2.1 ( p <0.001), and functional impairment (NRS) from 5.4±2.1 to 3.9±2.0 ( p <0.001). A positive PASS index (symptom status acceptable to patients) was noted in 139 (50.7%) patients. GC cancellation was noted in 19.7%, dose reduction in 25.9%, maintaining the same dose in 42.7%, and dose increase in 11.7%., Conclusion: Against the background of intensive RA therapy, including combination of DMARDs with bDMARDs or iJAK, complete withdrawal or reduction of GC dose was achieved in less than half (45.6%) of patients after 6 months.

Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in more than 70 countries, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in the European Union. Population pharmacokinetic (PK) models were developed in a phase 3 trial to characterize PK in pediatric patients with JIA and identify weight-based dosing regimens. The phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal, efficacy and safety trial, JUVE-BASIS, enrolled patients (aged 2 to <18 years) with polyarticular course JIA. During a safety/PK period, baricitinib concentration data from age-based dose cohorts were compared to concentrations from adult patients receiving 4-mg QD. PK data were used to develop a population PK model with allometric scaling to determine a weight-based posology in pediatric patients with JIA that matched the adult 4-mg exposure. Baricitinib plasma concentrations from 217 pediatric patients were used to characterize PK. Based on the adult model, pediatric PK was best described using a 2-compartment model with allometric scaling on clearance and volume of distribution and renal function (estimated with glomerular filtration rate [GFR], a known covariate affecting PK of baricitinib) on clearance. The PK modeling suggested the optimal dosing regimen based on weight for pediatric patients as: 2-mg QD for patients 10 to <30 kg and 4-mg QD for patients ≥30 kg. The use of a population PK model of baricitinib treatment in adult patients with RA, with the addition of allometric scaling for weight on clearance and volume terms, was useful to predict exposures and identify weight-based dosing in pediatric patients with JIA., (© 2024 Eli Lilly and Company. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of a strategy administering baricitinib versus one using TNF-inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) failure in a real-life treat-to-target (T2T) setting., Methods: Patients with biological and targeted synthetic DMARD (b/tsDMARD) naïve RA with disease duration ≤5 years without contraindications to b/tsDMARD were randomised to either TNFi or baricitinib when csDMARD failed to achieve disease control in a T2T setting. Changes in clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed at 12-week intervals for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority, with testing for superiority if non-inferiority is demonstrated, of baricitinib strategy in the number of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50) response at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included 28-joint count Disease Activity Score with C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) <2.6, changes in PROMs and radiographic progression., Results: A total of 199 patients (TNFi, n=102; baricitinib, n=97) were studied. Both study groups were similar. Baricitinib was both non-inferior and superior in achieving ACR50 response at week 12 (42% vs 20%). Moreover, 75% of baricitinib patients achieved DAS28-CRP <2.6 at week 12 compared with 46% of TNFi patients. On secondary outcomes throughout the duration of the study, the baricitinib strategy demonstrated comparable or better outcomes than TNFi strategy. Although not powered for safety, no unexpected safety signals were seen in this relatively small group of patients., Conclusion: Up to present, in a T2T setting, patients with RA failing csDMARDs have two main strategies to consider, Janus Kinases inhibitor versus bDMARDs (in clinical practice, predominantly TNFi). The PERFECTRA study suggested that starting with baricitinib was superior over TNFi in achieving response at 12 weeks and resulted in improved outcomes across all studied clinical measures and PROMs throughout the study duration in these patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CJvdL, MAHOV, PtK, DIT and MVdL report that the Investigator Initiated Study PERFECTRA was financially supported by an unrestricted grant by Eli Lilly. MVdL reports speaker fees by Eli Lilly and Galapagos. RB reports a research grant from Galapagos, advisory board payments from Janssen-Cilag bv, Galapagos, and Abbvie bv, payment for chairing an educational event from Janssen-Cilag bv., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib versus adalimumab from SELECT-COMPARE over 5 years., Methods: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate were randomised to receive upadacitinib 15 mg once daily, placebo or adalimumab 40 mg every other week, all with concomitant methotrexate. By week 26, patients with insufficient response to randomised treatment were rescued; patients remaining on placebo switched to upadacitinib. Patients completing the 48-week double-blind period could enter a long-term extension. Safety and efficacy were assessed through week 264, with radiographic progression analysed through week 192. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy was analysed by randomised group (non-responder imputation (NRI)) or treatment sequence (as observed)., Results: Rates of TEAEs were generally similar with upadacitinib versus adalimumab, although numerically higher rates of herpes zoster, lymphopenia, creatine phosphokinase elevation, hepatic disorder and non-melanoma skin cancer were reported with upadacitinib. Numerically greater proportions of patients randomised to upadacitinib versus adalimumab achieved clinical responses (NRI); Clinical Disease Activity Index remission (≤2.8) and Disease Activity Score based on C reactive protein <2.6 were achieved by 24.6% vs 18.7% (nominal p=0.042) and 31.8% vs 23.2% (nominal p=0.006), respectively. Radiographic progression was numerically lower with continuous upadacitinib versus adalimumab at week 192., Conclusion: The safety profile of upadacitinib through 5 years was consistent with the known safety profile of upadacitinib, with no new safety risks. Clinical responses were numerically higher with upadacitinib versus adalimumab at 5 years. Upadacitinib demonstrates a favourable benefit-risk profile for long-term rheumatoid arthritis treatment., Trial Registration Number: NCT02629159., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RF has received consulting fees and/or grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, BI, Biosplice, BMS, Flexion, Galapagos, Galvani, Gilead, GSK, Horizon, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Selecta, UCB, Viela, Vorso and Vyne and has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Kiniksa. JS has received speaking fees, consulting fees and grant/research support from AbbVie, Accord, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz and UCB. SKP, XB, NK and YL are employees of AbbVie and may hold stock or options. PD has received speaker fees from AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly, Nordimed and Thermofischer. LB has received speaking fees, consulting fees and grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva and UCB. CGP is an employee and shareholder of Spire Sciences and has served as a consultant for Aclaris, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Five Prime, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Istesso, Labcorp, Lilly, Pacira, Paradigm, SetPoint, Sorrento, SynOx and UCB. YT has received speaker fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Asahikasei, AstraZeneca, BI, BMS, Chugai, Eisai, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Pfizer, Taiho and Taisho and research grants from Asahikasei, Chugai, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe and Taisho. EM has received speaking fees, consulting fees and grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Hi-Bio, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz and Sanofi, and has received payment for expert testimony from AbbVie., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Non-adherence to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments must be identified. A methotrexate (MTX) urinary dosage (METU) was recently developed. The aim of our study was to assess adherence to MTX in RA using METU in real-life conditions and to compare it with indirect adherence measurement technics., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study at Reims University Hospital. We included over 18-year-old patients with RA treated by MTX for more than 6 months. Patients were invited to complete demographic, clinical and psychological questionnaires and adherence measurement technics (Compliance Questionnaire of Rheumatology (CQR) and Medication Possession Ratio (MPR)). A urinary sample was collected to measure MTX and information about tolerance was evaluated through Methotrexate Intolerance Severity Score., Results: 84 patients were included, 26 using oral MTX, 58 subcutaneous (SC) MTX. Among them, 73% were female, mean age was 61.5 years, MTX mean dose was 15 mg/week and 61.9% were treated by biological DMARDs (Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs). 77 patients (91.7%) were adherent to treatment according to METU, whereas MPR and CQR reported less adherence (69.5% and 61.9%, respectively). MPR and METU were not significantly different in SC MTX users (p=0.059). Non-adherent patients had a higher number of tender joints and C reactive protein value (p<0.05)., Conclusion: This is the first largest study evaluating MTX adherence in patients with RA using a urinary dosage. We identified that indirect adherence measurements did not reflect real-life adherence. It would be appreciable to realise METU, in a new study, in patients with RA with unexplained response to treatment, to consider it before escalating therapeutic strategy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Etanercept has been studied in doses up to 0.8 mg/kg/week (max 50 mg/week) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients. In clinical practice higher doses are used off-label, but evidence regarding the relation with outcomes is lacking. We describe the clinical course of JIA-patients receiving high-dose etanercept (1.6 mg/kg/week; max 50 mg/week) in the BeSt for Kids trial., Methods: 92 patients with oligoarticular JIA, RF-negative polyarticular JIA or juvenile psoriatic arthritis were randomised across three treat-to-target arms: (1) sequential DMARD-monotherapy (sulfasalazine or methotrexate (MTX)), (2) combination-therapy MTX + 6 weeks prednisolone and (3) combination therapy MTX + etanercept. In any treatment-arm, patients could eventually escalate to high-dose etanercept alongside MTX 10mg/m 2 /week., Results: 32 patients received high-dose etanercept (69% female, median age 6 years (IQR 4-10), median 10 months (7-16) from baseline). Median follow-up was 24.6 months. Most clinical parameters improved within 3 months after dose-increase: median JADAS10 from 7.2 to 2.8 (p = 0.008), VAS-physician from 12 to 4 (p = 0.022), VAS-patient/parent from 38.5 to 13 (p = 0.003), number of active joints from 2 to 0.5 (p = 0.12) and VAS-pain from 35.5 to 15 (p = 0.030). Functional impairments (CHAQ-score) improved more gradually and ESR remained stable. A comparable pattern was observed in 11 patients (73% girls, median age 8 (IQR 6-9)) who did not receive high-dose etanercept despite eligibility (comparison group). In both groups, 56% reached inactive disease at 6 months. No severe adverse events (SAEs) occurred after etanercept dose-increase. In the comparison group, 2 SAEs consisting of hospital admission occurred. Rates of non-severe AEs per subsequent patient year follow-up were 2.27 in the high-dose and 1.43 in the comparison group., Conclusions: Escalation to high-dose etanercept in JIA-patients who were treated to target was generally followed by meaningful clinical improvement. However, similar improvements were observed in a smaller comparison group who did not escalate to high-dose etanercept. No SAEs were seen after escalation to high-dose etanercept. The division into the high-dose and comparison groups was not randomised, which is a potential source of bias. We advocate larger, randomised studies of high versus regular dose etanercept to provide high level evidence on efficacy and safety., Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register; NTR1574; 3 December 2008; https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/26585 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Low-dose weekly methotrexate (MTX) is the mainstay of treatment in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Unfortunately, a substantial part of patients has insufficient efficacy of MTX. A potential cause of this inadequate response is suboptimal drug adherence. The aim of this study was to assess MTX adherence in juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients by quantification of MTX concentrations in plasma. Secondly, the association between MTX concentrations and either self-reported adherence issues, or concomitant use of biologics was examined., Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study using plasma samples from juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients. An ultrasensitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method was developed for quantification of MTX and its metabolite 7-hydroxy-MTX in plasma. The determined MTX plasma concentrations in juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients were compared with corresponding adherence limits, categorising them as either adherent or possibly non-adherent to MTX therapy., Results: Plasma samples of 43 patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis were analysed. Adherence to MTX in this population was 88% shortly after initiation of MTX therapy and decreased to 77% after one year of treatment. Teenagers were more at risk for non-adherence (p = 0.002). We could not find an association between MTX adherence with either self-reported adherence issues, nor with the use of concomitant biological treatment (p = 1.00 and p = 0.27, respectively; Fisher's Exact)., Conclusions: Quantification of MTX in plasma is a feasible and objective method to assess adherence in patients using low-dose weekly MTX. In clinical practice, the use of this method could be a helpful tool for physicians to refute or support suspicion of non-adherence to MTX therapy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The goal of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of different biological agents (infliximab, canakinumab, baricitinib, anakinra, adalimumab, tofacitinib, tocilizumab, and rilonacept) compared with placebo for systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients, through a network meta-analysis., Methods: Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to July 2023 for randomized controlled trials comparing different biological agents (infliximab, canakinumab, baricitinib, anakinra, adalimumab, tofacitinib, tocilizumab, and rilonacept) or placebo directly or indirectly in JIA. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. Data was extracted and analyzed by R with gemtc package. The treatment options were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value., Results: We identified 10 randomized controlled trials and analyzed 898 participants. Canakinumab (odds ratio 55.0, 95% credible intervals 2.4-67.0) was more effective than the placebo, and the difference was statistically significant. However, there was no statistical significance between other drugs versus placebo in terms of the modified ACRpedi30 (P > .05). The SUCRA shows that canakinumab ranked first (SUCRA, 86.9%), anakinra ranked second (SUCRA, 77.7%), adalimumab ranked third (SUCRA, 61.9%), and placebo ranked the last (SUCRA, 6.3%). Nevertheless, there were no notable discrepancies in the occurrence of adverse events, hepatic-related adverse events, infectious adverse event, serious adverse events, and serious infection following treatment with canakinumab, anakinra, tocilizumab, rilonacept, or the placebo. Based on the clustergram of modified ACRpedi30 and adverse events, canakinumab is suggested for JIA according to the surface under SUCRAs considering the symptom and adverse events simultaneously., Conclusions: Among patients with JIA, canakinumab exhibited the highest likelihood of being the optimal treatment for achieving the modified ACRpedi30 response rate, and neither of the tested biological agents carried a significant risk of serious adverse events., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Purpose: To investigate the disease activity in real-world patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switched from originator etanercept (ETN) to biosimilar YLB113. Methods: Forty one RA patients who switched from ETN to YLB113 were divided into 2 groups based on the Disease Activity Score based on the 28-joint count (DAS28) 12 months after switching (R group: DAS28 < 2.6, N group: DAS28 ≥ 2.6), and the baseline characteristics were statistically examined. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed to estimate the cut-off value of DAS28 at baseline to achieve remission 12 months after switching. Results: There was no significant difference in the DAS28 at baseline and 12 months after switching ( p = .83). Sixteen out of the 20 patients in remission at baseline achieved remission after switching. A univariate analysis revealed the rheumatoid factor ( p = .04) and DAS28 ( p < .001) at baseline were significantly lower in the R group than in the N group. Furthermore, logistic regression analysis revealed DAS28 was an independent factor ( p = .004) for achieving remission 12 months after switching. An ROC curve analysis showed the optimal cut-off value for DAS28 at baseline to achieve remission at 12 months after switching was 2.5. Conclusions: RA patients who achieved remission using originator ETN, were able to maintain remission even if they switched to YLB113., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Immunotherapy targeting factors related to immune imbalance has been widely employed for RA treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose interleukin (IL)-2 combined with tocilizumab (TCZ), a biologics targeting IL-6, in RA patients., Methods: Fifty adults with active RA who met the criteria with complete clinical data were recruited, and divided into three groups: control group (n=15), IL-2 group (n=26), and IL-2+TCZ group (n=9). In addition to basic treatment, participants in the IL-2 group received IL-2 (0.5 MIU/day), while participants in the IL-2+TCZ group received IL-2 (0.5 MIU/day) along with one dose of TCZ (8 mg/kg, maximum dose: 800 mg). All subjects underwent condition assessment, laboratory indicators and safety indicators detection, and records before treatment and one week after treatment., Results: Compared with the baseline, all three groups showed significant improvement in disease conditions, as evidenced by significantly reduced disease activity indicators. The low-dose IL-2 and combination treatment groups demonstrated a violent proliferation of Tregs, while the absolute number of Th1, Th2, and Th17 cells in the latter group showed a decreasing trend. The decrease in the Th17/Treg ratio was more pronounced in the IL-2+TCZ groups. No significant adverse reactions were observed in any of the patients., Conclusion: Exogenous low doses of IL-2 combined TCZ were found to be safe and effective in reducing effector T cells and appropriately increasing Treg levels in RA patients with high effector T cell levels. This approach helps regulate immune homeostasis and contributes to the prevention of disease deterioration., Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojEN.html?proj=13909, identifier ChiCTR-INR-16009546., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Zhang, Chen, Wang, Shao, Cheng, Pei, Su, Zhang and Li.)

Background: A woman in her seventies presented to the accident and emergency department (A&E) with shortness of breath that had increased over a period of three weeks. She had a history of COPD, hypertension and polymyalgia rheumatica. A medication error involving methotrexate, used for autoimmune diseases, was discovered during her medical history review., Case Presentation: The patient arrived with stable vital signs, including 94 % oxygen saturation and a respiratory rate of 20 breaths/min. She had been taking 2.5 mg of methotrexate daily for the past three weeks instead of the prescribed weekly dose of 15 mg. Other examinations revealed no alarming findings, except for a slightly elevated D-dimer level., Interpretation: Considering her medical history and exclusion of other differential diagnoses, methotrexate toxicity was suspected. The patient was admitted to the hospital and intravenous folinic acid was initiated as an antidote treatment. Five days later, the patient was discharged with an improvement in the shortness of breath. This case underscores the importance of effective communication in health care, particularly in complex cases like this, where understanding dosages and administration is crucial. Medical history, clinical examinations and medication reviews, often involving clinical pharmacists, are vital in the A&E to reveal medication errors.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients receiving biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) often experience treatment changes due to inefficacy or adverse events. The purpose of this study was to clarify the incidence and reasons for change of b/tsDMARDs in a cohort of Japanese patients with RA and to identify the predictors of treatment change. This was a retrospective observational study of RA patients prescribed b/tsDMARD between April 2011 and December 2020 at the Kindai University Nara Hospital. We focused on the change of first-line b/tsDMARDs and identified the reasons for change using the electronic medical records. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of treatment change as the objective variable and baseline characteristics as the explanatory variable. The reasons for treatment change were inefficacy in 69.6% of cases and adverse events in 29.7% of cases. Concomitant administration of higher dose prednisolone at baseline (adjusted odds ratio: [95% confidence interval]: 2.52 [1.19-5.33]) and old age (2.00 [1.03-3.87]) were associated with change in b/tsDMARD treatment due to inefficacy within 2 years of initiation. A better understanding of b/tsDMARDs persistence and elucidating the predictors of treatment change can help improve treatment outcomes for RA.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of ixekizumab on self-reported functioning and health in patients with active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA)., Methods: COAST-X was a randomized, controlled trial conducted in patients with nonradiographic axial SpA over 52 weeks. Participants were randomized at a ratio of 1:1:1 to receive 80 mg of ixekizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks or 2 weeks or placebo for 52 weeks. Self-reported functioning and health end points included the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey, Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) health index, and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) health-utility descriptive system., Results: Compared to placebo, ixekizumab treatment resulted in improvement of SF-36 physical component summary scores from baseline, with a score of 4.7 improving to 8.9 with ixekizumab therapy every 4 weeks (P < 0.05) and a score of 9.3 with ixekizumab therapy every 2 weeks (P < 0.01); the greatest improvements were observed in the domains of physical functioning, role-physical, and bodily pain at weeks 16 and 52. A higher proportion of patients receiving ixekizumab therapy every 2 weeks reported ≥3 improvements based on the ASAS health index from baseline to weeks 16 and 52 (P < 0.05). Significantly more patients receiving ixekizumab every 4 weeks reported improvements in "good health status" on the ASAS health index (ASAS score of ≤5) at weeks 16 and 52 (P < 0.05). Patients receiving ixekizumab reported improvements on the EQ-5D-5L compared to those who received placebo at week 16 (0.11 versus 0.17 for patients receiving treatment every 4 weeks and 0.19 for patients receiving treatment every 2 weeks; P < 0.05), which remained consistent at week 52. There were no clinical meaningful differences in responses based on the ixekizumab dosing regimen for patients who received ixekizumab therapy every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks., Conclusion: In patients with nonradiographic axial SpA, therapy with ixekizumab was superior to placebo in the improvement of self-reported functioning and health at weeks 16 and 52., (© 2020 The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To determine whether concomitant HCQ modulates the increase in erythrocyte mean corpuscular volume (MCV) caused by MTX therapy, and whether this is associated with improved clinical response in RA., Methods: A retrospective observational analysis was conducted on two independent hospital datasets of biologic-naïve, early-RA patients who started oral MTX. Baseline characteristics, DAS28-ESR and monthly MCV after starting MTX were obtained. Conventional and machine-learning statistical approaches were applied to the discovery cohort (Cohort 1, 655 patients) and results validated using Cohort 2 (225 patients)., Results: HCQ therapy with MTX was associated with a 2-fold increase in the likelihood of response defined in this study as clinical remission or low disease activity at 6 months (P <0.001). The improved clinical outcome of combination HCQ and MTX therapy was associated with an accelerated rise in MCV from 2 months after commencing therapy. The increase in MCV at 3 months was equivalent to the contemporaneous reduction in the DAS (DAS28-ESR) in predicting clinical response at 6 months. Using latent class mixed modelling, five trajectories of MCV change over 6 months from baseline were identified. The odds ratio of response to treatment was 16.2 (95% CI 5.7, 46.4, P <0.001) in those receiving combination therapy classified within the MCV elevation >5 fl class, which contained the most patients, compared with MTX alone., Conclusion: Our data provide mechanistic insight into the synergistic clinical benefit of concomitant HCQ with MTX, boosting the rise in MCV, which could serve as a companion biomarker of treatment response., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Background: Few data exist on the association between increased BMI and response to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) in RA. We aimed to explore the association between increased (overweight or obese) BMI on csDMARD prescribing, MTX dose and disease activity over 12 months., Methods: Participants in an international RA database were stratified into early (<1 year post-diagnosis) and established RA. EULAR response, 28-joint DAS (DAS28) remission and treatments were recorded at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. Increased BMI was explored in early and established RA as predictors of good EULAR response, DAS28 remission, number of csDMARDs and MTX dose, using logistic and linear regression., Results: Data from 1313 patients, 44.3% with early RA, were examined. In early RA, increased BMI was not significantly associated with remission. In established RA, obese patients on monotherapy were significantly less likely to achieve good EULAR response or DAS28 remission at 6 months and more likely to be treated with combination csDMARDs compared with normal BMI. In patients taking MTX, overweight and obese patients with early and established RA were exposed to higher MTX doses (mono- and combination therapy), with a mean dose of 20 mg/week, compared with 15 mg/week in those of normal BMI., Conclusion: We observed that compared with patients with normal BMI, overweight and obese individuals experienced more intensive csDMARD exposures. Similar response rates were observed in early RA but increased BMI was associated with reduced response in established RA. Optimization of targeted RA treatment remains important, particularly in those with increased BMI where response in established disease may be attenuated., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have been shown to be highly effective in the treatment of rheumatic conditions, but may increase the risk of infections. Development of tuberculosis (TB) while on bDMARD therapy is of particular concern in high TB burden settings such as Western Cape Province, South Africa., Objectives: To describe the diagnosis, management and outcome of patients who developed active TB while receiving a bDMARD., Results: Ten patients who screened negative for TB prior to initiation of a bDMARD subsequently developed active TB. TB was diagnosed between 10 months and 9 years from bDMARD initiation, suggesting new infection, and included 6 cases of extrapulmonary TB. All patients required multiple tests to confirm the diagnosis of TB, and all were successfully treated., Conclusions: TB can occur in patients on bDMARD therapy despite initial screening, and may have unusual, extrapulmonary manifestations that pose a diagnostic challenge.